Talk:Church Militant (website)

NPOV: Bannon?

@Wowaconia: I believe a lot of what you've added has nothing to do with Church Militant, the organization. To the extent that the phrase "church militant" has been politicized by Bannon and other American politicians, that most likely belongs on the Churches Militant, Penitent, and Triumphant page under § Secular uses. Debate about what the phrase means does not belong on this page. I think most of § Steve Bannon and "Church Militant Theology" should be removed. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 05:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This is more or less WP:SYNTH to pull the Bannon drama in. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

@Wowaconia: you forgot to follow Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and have not properly attributed the contributors to Michael Voris. I prefer a deletion of the section rather than a repair. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 10:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The mentions in national media raises the organization from obscure youtube channel to one of national notice at the time. I think its inclusion shows the notability Wikipedia would require for this page to even exist. The National media became fixated on the term and this organization became a focus. --Wowaconia (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Bannon has nothing to do with Church Militant (the website) and no connection to it. --NearlyMad (talk) 15:06, 06 November 2019 (UTC)

Just a comment here, since this was supposed to the the NPOV reasoning... the article doesn't seem to say anything about Church Militant being politicised by Bannon? I struggle to see what the issue is. Church Militant, as I can tell, has engaged in reporting which would be deemed WP:FRINGE so the criticisms are fine (including those from other Catholics). The section itself is not highly critical, has an impartial heading, and simply reports what other journalists have said. Journalists don't go after National Review, for example, because NR actually keeps most of their stories accurate and does not republish what can be considered false information (and they issue a correction if they did). You need to stay impartial here, analysis and criticism is allowed. People who like Church Militant aren't going to be put off because someone from USAtoday wrote a negative article about them. I will say I have no stake in this, people are entitled to their opinions. I'm struggling to see why an NPOV notice is still needed? Care to explain? Sxologist (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

• Sxologist, I believe this edit by Wugapodes took care of the matter. I'll remove the tag. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing problems

Hello, I have removed a few unreliable sources, such as the Dayton Daily opinion column, and Americans United with the whole back-and-forth. Americans United is not a WP:RS for these claims. For that matter, neither is ChurchMilitant a reliable source for much of anything. I think we should be extremely cautious in using them as a source for anything other than claims about their own structure and activities. It seems that there is not much outside that for now, so that is good. Also, let's not go into WP:QUOTEFARM territory. Substantial copying could be a copyright problem, and it's a neutrality problem, when we aren't using our own words to describe what the sources are saying. Thanks. 2600:8800:1880:FC:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You can use an organizations materials as a source for that organizations positions as per Wikipedia standards. Quotations are not copyright violations if sourced. There is no point on this page existing if it is to remain a stub, call for its deletion instead any savable material can be returned to the Voris page where this split from. Wowaconia (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article presents nothing but a negative view of the Church Militant website. --NearlyMad (talk) 14:49, 06 November 2019 (UTC)

@NearlyMad: I have pinged an experienced editor to take a look in the section below. :) Sxologist (talk) 08:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

JzG: given the NPOV tag here, what approach should be taken? --Sxologist (talk) 08:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

pinging @Genericusername57:

Objection to self-published source

I object to this edit on several grounds. Primarily, it is a self-published source (sspx.org) that makes claims about a third party. That is not a usable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Furthermore, it introduces BLP concerns, as Michael Voris is the target here, and not simply Church Militant as a group. Therefore, I would be within my rights to continue the edit-war and invoke WP:BLPREMOVE as a defense against WP:3RR, but more eyeballs on this dispute would be appreciated. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Elizium23, I'm feeling you, to some extent, but not completely. The content is indeed about CM. It is true that it has a primary source, but that source is the newsletter of a very notable organization. What is missing is the first part--the part where (apparently? allegedly?) CM criticized the order etc., in a reliable secondary source. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

  Drmies, yeah, it is difficult to establish WP:DUE here with zero WP:RS. I am not sure what credence is lent by "a very notable organization" - it is still a self-published newsletter as the institute's mouthpiece, with a lack of editorial oversight. Without a full narrative established for the back-and-forth between them, I fail to see why we should include a criticism in isolation. Elizium23 (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

• The credence of Society of Saint Pius X is relevant as a matter of weight. If I say something, it means nothing. If CM says something, it means next to nothing. If this club of priests says something, it means a lot more. Editorial insight (which we can presume exists) isn't really relevant here; we can safely assume that it represents the organization's opinion, if it is an editorial piece, for instance. Drmies (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)